4 ms·

In trying to make sense of it I would say this: There are 2 requirements to not be struggling. 1. basic needs. Food, shelter, water. 2. not being substantially

In trying to make sense of it I would say this: There are 2 requirements to not be struggling. 1. basic needs. Food, shelter, water. 2. not being substantially poorer than the people you see and interact with. Given that most of the world is past number 1, all the rest they'd need to do is have financial equality (hard, IMO), or ensure that only few have wealth and are segregated (easier, IMO). The last thing you'd want is poor, middle, and rich in 1/3, 1/3 , 1/3 quantities all interacting with each other. Just yesterday there was a study that made rounds how having the Economy Class airplane passengers walk past the First Class causes turmoil. That's a perfect example of what not to do.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
300 years from now you could fall from the roof of your home, break your spine in three places, be instantly teleported to a hospital and be right as rain and home before supper. Whereas my grandmother died quickly and needlessly 20 years ago from a minor biopsy infection. Moving goalposts doesn't change lives. As standards of living improve, people's perceptions of what they ought to have changes as well. Your saying what people should or should not constitute as suffering will have very little effect given that people tend not to listen when they suspect they are being talked down to.
- randyrand 11y ago
  > should or should not constitute as suffering Struggling is not really all that subjective, IMO. It's something we've all felt (emphasis on emotion) and can quickly relate to and reasonably collectively define. My point is we should not try and constitute something other than struggling as struggling. Struggling is already a reasonably well defined emotional state, there's no need to try and equivocate other things with struggling. More directly, We should not conclude that poor and few means implies struggling. All too often we conclude that richer means less struggling, and that by increasing wealth we can make the world a better place.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

300 years from now you could fall from the roof of your home, break your spine in three places, be instantly teleported to a hospital and be right as rain and home before supper. Whereas my grandmother died quickly and needlessly 20 years ago from a minor biopsy infection. Moving goalposts doesn't change lives. As standards of living improve, people's perceptions of what they ought to have changes as well. Your saying what people should or should not constitute as suffering will have very little effect given that people tend not to listen when they suspect they are being talked down to.

randyrand 11y ago
> should or should not constitute as suffering Struggling is not really all that subjective, IMO. It's something we've all felt (emphasis on emotion) and can quickly relate to and reasonably collectively define. My point is we should not try and constitute something other than struggling as struggling. Struggling is already a reasonably well defined emotional state, there's no need to try and equivocate other things with struggling. More directly, We should not conclude that poor and few means implies struggling. All too often we conclude that richer means less struggling, and that by increasing wealth we can make the world a better place.